JCT: You can see my CRTC videos or read my blog at
http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel for info leading up to:

Federal Court of Appeal
Ottawa, Ontario, July 22, 2009

CORAM: NADON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.

Docket: 09-A-19
Date: 20090721

BETWEEN:

John C. Turmel
Applicant
and
Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission
Respondent

ORDER


UPON Notice of Motion by the applicant John C. Turmel for leave
to appeal the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission's (the CRTC's) decision 2009-184 dated April 8 2009
dismissing his complait concerning inequitable distribution of
the free-time political broadcast on Rogers Cable political
debate in the Brant 2007 provincial general election;

UPON the affidavit of the aplicant sworn October 4 2007,
UPON the applicant's written representations;
UPON the CRTC's record in response to the Notice of Motion; and
http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/3357
UPON the Applicant's Reply the the CRTC's response
http://yahoogroups.com/group/turmel/message/3360

THE COURT ORDERS: The Applicant's motion is dismissed with costs.
M. Nadon, J.A.

JCT: It's pretty depressing when you put together a good case,
the Crown responds, you beat them badly, and the referee then
awards the win to the guy who got beaten up. Why bother. And now
to file an application for leave to appeal as the last stop on
the railroading I received, why bother? Because I get to make my
case, force them to respond and get to beat them up and then 3
judges have to sign their names to the decision that gave the
victory to the guys who were laughed out of the debate. Justices
Marc Nadon, John Maxwell Evans, and Denis Pelletier of the
Federal Court of Appeal couldn't find one error to hang their
dismissal on, a drubbing of the opposition they got to crown the
victor. To puke generations of readers to come.

So why bother applying to the Supreme Court if it's so useless?
File Number: #
Appeal Court No: 09-A-19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA)
BETWEEN:
John C. Turmel
Applicant
Appellant in appeal
and
Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission
Respondent
Respondent in appeal

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)


TAKE NOTICE that Applicant John Turmel hereby applies for leave
to appeal to the Court in forma pauperis pursuant to Section
59(4) of the Supreme Court Act from the judgment of Justices
Marc Nadon, John Maxwell Evans, and Denis Pelletier of the
Federal Court of Appeal 09-A-19 made July 22 2009 dismissing the
application for leave to appeal the Broadcasting Decision CRTC
2009-184 made on April 8 2009 which dismissed the Applicant's
complaint about inequitable distribution of the free-time
political broadcast on Rogers Cable political debate during the
Brant 2007 provincial general election.

THE GROUNDS ARE that the allocation of the free-time partisan
political broadcast was inequitable despite an Ontario Court of
Appeal ruling in R. v. CBC [1993] 51 C.P.R.(3d) that debates do
not have to include all candidates to be equitable.

Dated at Brantford on Aug 20 2009.
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne St. E.,
Brantford ON N3T 2G3,
Tel/fax: 519-753-0645
Email: johnturmel@...

ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR

NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT: A respondent may serve and file a
memorandum in response to this application for leave to
appeal within 30 days after service of the application. If
no response is filed within that time, the Registrar will
submit this application for leave to appeal to the Court for
consideration pursuant to section 43 of the Supreme Court Act.

APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.59(4) of the Supreme Court Act)


PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Applicant was an independent candidate in the 2003 Ontario
general election in Brant riding. Having participated in a
quarter century's worth of debates by that time, Applicant was
the only candidate who used visual aids such as newspaper
clippings, complementary currencies such as Toronto Dollars,
Guelph Greendollars, Maritimes Hours, computer diskette, rubber
ruler, etc. Like most candidates, Applicant wears the
Abolitionist Party button which is a lapel sticker saying "LETS"
for the Greencurrency Local Employment-Trading Software.
Applicant has a Royal Flush on a tie and wears a white hard-hat
saying "The Engineer" to open and close presentations."

2. Rogers debate moderator Tim Philp didn't like the Applicant
using visual aids when the other candidates did not and so, in
the 2004 federal general election debate, he unilaterally banned
visual aids and party or personal identification. Of course,
other than party buttons, this ban on visual aids did not affect
the presentations of the others, only Applicant's.

3. On July 21 2004, Applicant complained to the CRTC about
Rogers' interfering with candidates' presentations.

4. On Aug 11 2004, a letter from the CRTC informed Rogers of the
complaint but did nothing more about it.

5. Two more letters to the CRTC still got no response.

6. At the 2007 Ontario General Election debate for Brant riding
re-broadcast on Sep 29, Oct 6 & 8, Applicant displayed the party
button and was cut off by moderator Tim Philp who insisted it be
put down. Applicant put it on the lapel. The moderator would not
allow the continuation of the candidate's opening statement
unless it was taken off so Applicant obeyed and removed it.

7. Then Tim Philp ordered the Brantford police to remove the
candidate from the debate anyway.

8. On Sep 24 2007, I complained to the CRTC demanding they
guarantee all candidates equitable time, quantitatively and
qualitatively.

9. On Sep 25 2007, the CRTC gave Rogers three weeks, after the
election date, to respond.

10. On Sep 27 2007, Rogers refused Applicant an equitable share
of time saying the ejection was not for wearing the party button
but for interrupting the next speaker who had been told to speak
after Applicant had been cut off.

11. The three extra re-broadcasts of the inequitable debate took
place.

12. Trying to obtain relief before it was too late and the
election was over, Applicant sought an order of mandamus
compelling correction before it was too late within an
application for judicial review.

13. The Federal Court ruled it could not help until the CRTC had
issued a decision, even if too late to do anything about it.

14. Applicant then requested a decision of the Respondent on the
complaint and on April 8 2009, the CRTC dismissed Applicant's
complaint.

15. Applicant filed an Application for leave to appeal the CRTC
decision to the Federal Court of Appeal which was dismissed by
Justices Marc Nadon, John Maxwell Evans, and Denis Pelletier
without reasons on July 22 2009.

PART II - POINTS OF OBJECTION:

16. The issues raised are:
1) whether the licensee controls display of candidates'
promotional materials;
2) whether a candidate can be punished by the loss of time after
the moderator's command has been obeyed;
3) whether the Commission is derelict in its duty to regulate
and supervise air-time distribution beforehand;
4) whether the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. C.B.C.
that debates are not programs of partisan political character is
contradictory;
5) whether omitting the "all" for the Commission's policy
statements from the statute's "all rival parties and candidates"
is derelict;
6) whether the Ontario Court of Appeal's contradictory ruling
should be accepted as final, or
7) whether accepting the court ruling which corrupts the
democratic process by allowing the exclusion of candidates from
debates when they can issue new regulations that work is a
dereliction of the duty to regulate and supervise that election
debates be democratic.

PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

17. Since I could not have been interrupting the next candidate
during my 1-minute opening statement, arguing that I interrupted
(after I had been interrupted by the moderator) is a mere false
pretext for denying equitable time for exhibiting my party
badge. The moderator had no right to interrupt my equitable
share of the free-time political broadcast time for the mere
display of a party decal. The Broadcast simply says that free
time must be shared equitably by all rival candidates, not that
free time must be shared equitably by all rival candidates "who
obey the Rogers dress code." (Issue #1)

18. Regardless, interrupting another candidate is not sufficient
cause for not following the equitable time requirements of the
CRTC, even if it was true, which is could not have been.

19. The CRTC has both a responsibility to enact regulations and
supervisory responsibility to ensure a democratic election
influence by the greatest influence of all, electronic media.
Paragraph 10(1)(e) of the Broadcasting Act empowers the
Commission to make regulations respecting the proportion of time
that may be devoted to the broadcasting of programs, including
advertisement or announcements, of a partisan political
character and the assignment of that time on an equitable basis
to political parties and candidates.

20. The CRTC has enacted several regulations requiring that,
during an election period, broadcasters allocate time for
broadcasting programs, advertisements or announcements or a
"partisan political character" on an equitable basis to
accredited political parties and rival candidates in the
election... With respect to debate programs held during an
election, the Commission noted that it may be impractical to
include all rival parties and candidates in one program.
However, the Commission stated that if this type of broadcast
takes place, all parties and candidates should be accommodated,
even if doing so requires that more than one program be
broadcast. Applicant accepts this Commission statement as the
rationale for why I asked that I be accommodated after the event
in obtaining an equitable share of the broadcast pie even if
doing so required that more than one program be broadcast or
appended.

21. Having no process to prevent undemocratic distributions
shows the Commission's failure to regulate and supervise that
the time pie be shared fairly. If one can figure out the
distribution of a cherry pie is unfair before the pie is eaten,
the Commission is derelict in being unable to judge that the
distribution of the time-pie is inequitable before it is
allocated on an inequitable basis to not all rival candidates.
(Issue #3)

22. Public Notice 1995-44, states that, pursuant to the Ontario
Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation (1993), the Commission's regulations regarding the
equitable allocation of time did not apply to election debate
programs because they are not programs of a "partisan political
character." This ruling that debates do not have to be shared
equitably like other broadcasts of partisan political character
because debates are not programs of partisan political character
is contradictory. And once the Court of Appeal had ruled that
the present regulations did not ensure that the time devoted to
the broadcasting of programs of a partisan political character
was shared on an equitable basis by political parties and
candidates, the Broadcasting Act empowers the Commission to make
better regulations to effect the intent that the time devoted to
the broadcasting of programs of a partisan political character
was shared on an equitable basis by all political parties and
candidates. (Issue #4)

23. The Commission further noted that it had reiterated this
statement in Broadcasting Circular 2007-5 issued in connection
with the 2007 Ontario provincial election, thus further not
fulfilling their mandate to ensure a democratic use of the
national airwaves by alerting the media that the Ontario Court
of Appeal has okayed excluding any candidate they want without
reason if they merely called it a debate. So the Commission to
ensure democratic election broadcasting is peddling this
judicial rationalization for why election debate broadcasts do
not have to be shared equitably among all rival political
candidates anymore. Yet it has the duty to come up with
regulations that work and to supervise that democracy works, not
accept a court ruling rationalizing candidate exclusion as still
being democratic. The CRTC is not limited by the court's
contradictory decision on its first bad efforts to ensure
democracy and can always try to make better policy a second
time. That's why I am challenging not only the O.C.A. ruling
that debates featuring partisan political opinions are not
partisan political programming (Issue #6) but also that the CRTC
is not limited by it and can enact new regulations trying to be
more effective at ensuring democracy again. After all, sharing a
pie isn't such a complicated deal. (Issue #7)

24. Of course, it doesn't help that in the 1980s and 1990s, the
legislation said: "all rival parties and candidates." Applicant
doubts that Parliament dropped the word "all" and suggests that
the Commission chose to omit it in their policy statements. Of
course, if Parliament has dropped the "all" from "all parties
and candidates," then that explains why the O.C.A. would rule
that the media can now exclude any candidate they want from
debates since they don't have to have them on at all. But
Applicant alleges that it is an omission of the word by the
Commission and not a deletion by Parliament. If Parliament did
remove the "all," I am asking this Court to order them to put it
back in. (Issue #5)

25. Of course, if Rogers may exclude any candidate at their
total editorial discretion because they call it a debate, it's a
bonus to hide such absolute control over participation if they
can also make up rules offensive enough to prompt some
candidates to rebel, especially those whom the changes in format
are intended to disfavor. Of course, since the Commission has
omitted to mention that Applicant had obeyed the fuhrer's order
before being ejected, the Commission must therefore fail to see
that the issue herein is not breaking Big Brother's Rules, it's
about being punished after obeying; and about how much a
candidate can be punished by loss of air-time after he has
already obeyed. (Issue #2)

PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

26. On all these grounds, Applicant seeks an Order granting
leave to appeal from the judgment of Justices Marc Nadon, John
Maxwell Evans, and Denis Pelletier of the Federal Court of
Appeal 09-A-19 made July 22 2009 dismissing the application for
leave to appeal the Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184 made on
April 8 2009 which dismissed the Applicant's complaint about
inequitable distribution of the free-time political broadcast on
Rogers Cable political debate during the Brant 2007 provincial
general election.

PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

R. v. C.B.C. [1993] 51 C.P.R.(3d)

PART VII - CRTC REGULATIONS BEING RELIED ON

Public Notice CRTC 1995-44

Broadcasting Circular CRTC 2007-5


Dated at Brantford on Aug 20 2009.
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

JCT: So why bother applying to the Supreme Court if it's so
useless? Because I get to make my arguments, the Crown has to
respond, and I get to beat them up once again and having three of
the highest referees in Canada fix the decision and award the
victory to the guy who got beat up. Usually without any reasons.

So three Federal Court of Appeal Justices signed their names
allowing Big Brother to exclude candidates from debates and now
I'm going to get three Supremes to put their names down on the
atrocity against democracy. That's why it's worth having fought
over 30 cases right to the top.

Plus I'm sure it's some kind of record for a non-lawyer. And it's
therapeutic to put them through having to vindicate a violation
of democracy and then get to beat them on on a moral issue before
the stinker of a decision is handed down. So: